Brett Lee in test team

[Richard]

When he's fit he has been exceptional actually. Mind that he was injured the first ball of the Test series in England, yet bowled with that injury. Every game that he has been fit, he's looked like taking wickets regularly and in most of them, he has.

I'd not go so far as to say "exceptional", but yes, I'd clean forgotten that nasty fall at the start of the Lord's Test.

 

[Richard]

clearly, i mean in the first test, the pitch started off flat, then turned seamer friendly, and then turned flat again. and in the 2nd test 2nd inning when england got 417, clearly the pitch was seamer friendly.

I was talking exclusively about Lord's - only a fool would say any of the South Africans bowled well at Edgbaston where the pitch was flat throughout the match (Pollock who had 1 for 53 or something before getting the last wicket, Ntini who was hammered for 161 or something, Hall didn't play).
At Lord's the pitch helped the seamers for most of England's innings (Gough and Anderson putting-on the highest stand of the innings kinda gives away the fact that it had eased out by then) and then was flat for the rest of the match.

he looked nowhere near test class. hence he retired, cause he himself knew he wasnt good enough. to use anderson and harmison in 2003 as comparisons as to how good he is, is the stupidest thing ive ever heard.

Clearly, as both ended-up with better figures than him in those 2 Tests. Doesn't mean they bowled any better. If Gough had come back 2 Tests later than he did I'm very confident he'd have found it almost impossible not to emerge with good figures. Yes, he might have got hammered at The Oval, but then again, he might not have, because he'd then have eased his way back into Test-cricket.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I'd not go so far as to say "exceptional", but yes, I'd clean forgotten that nasty fall at the start of the Lord's Test.

Exceptional is not always reflected in wicket-taking though. Consider that many bowlers these days bowl a lot worse than Collins bowled when he was fit and took a lot more wickets for a lot less. Collins still held his own, taking wickets and always making the batsmen think. He constantly tested out the batsmen, technically and otherwise. In Australia that was epitomized, and he vindicated what I've been preaching for some time now - Pedro Collins should be playing ODI cricket. Even before that series he had a useful ODI record.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Martin's played 17 authentic Tests and bowled well in 4 of them (SR 4.25); Lee post-injury has played 28 Tests (including Zimbabwe ones, which wouldn't be included if he'd done well) and bowled well in 4 of them (SR 7).
I know who I think's the better bowler, though they're both rubbish enough.

The problem there for me is that 'apostrophe s'. How can you say Martin is the better bowler when Lee's last Test match was the 4th against India last year. You'd be justified in saying was during a given period, but there's every chance that Lee would come back and tear it up at Test level. You can't really say he's failing as a Test bowler currently if he's not actually playing as a Test bowler currently.

 

[Richard]

The reason he's not currently playing is because his past failures are so bad.

 

[Richard]

Exceptional is not always reflected in wicket-taking though. Consider that many bowlers these days bowl a lot worse than Collins bowled when he was fit and took a lot more wickets for a lot less. Collins still held his own, taking wickets and always making the batsmen think. He constantly tested out the batsmen, technically and otherwise. In Australia that was epitomized, and he vindicated what I've been preaching for some time now - Pedro Collins should be playing ODI cricket. Even before that series he had a useful ODI record.

Well hopefully we'll see in time.
I'm hoping he's not going to cause too many problems to South Africa, though, of course.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Well hopefully we'll see in time.
I'm hoping he's not going to cause too many problems to South Africa, though, of course.

Boo you for supporting South Africa.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

The reason he's not currently playing is because his past failures are so bad.

Yet that has no bearing on how good he currently is. The past does not equate the present.

 

[Richard]

Boo you for supporting South Africa.

I support South Africa in all circumstances unless they're playing England.

 

[Richard]

Yet that has no bearing on how good he currently is. The past does not equate the present.

Well he's got to play again before we see whether anything's changed.
And for mine all evidence points to that nothing has changed.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Well he's got to play again before we see whether anything's changed.
And for mine all evidence points to that nothing has changed.

Despite the fact that he's bowling quite well in ODIs?

 

[marc71178]

He's been doing that for a long time though Liam, his record speaks for itself.

 

[Richard]

Despite the fact that he's bowling quite well in ODIs?

No, despite the fact that he's had his usual mostly-bowling-crap-in-ODIs but still usually getting a stack of wickets.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

No, despite the fact that he's had his usual mostly-bowling-crap-in-ODIs but still usually getting a stack of wickets.

You've been watching the cricket?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

He's been doing that for a long time though Liam, his record speaks for itself.

But he's generally not been swinging the ball consistently at pace.

 

[Richard]

You've been watching the cricket?

Yep.
And studying the figures as well.

 

[Richard]

But he's generally not been swinging the ball consistently at pace.

I don't know which cricket you've been watching but he's certainly mostly done that with the white-ball - mostly because he usually gets it when it's new.
Difference is, you've gotta bowl more overs in a Test-match.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Well he's got to play again before we see whether anything's changed.
And for mine all evidence points to that nothing has changed.

What evidence? He has been bowling supurbly in ODI cricket, and that is the only evidence available at this time. His shortcomings which have led to him struggling somewhat in tests, such as that he had a tendancy to bowl the ball too low with a slinging action and that he was often wayward and bowled too many no-balls and so on have either been eradicated or improved significantly... the evidence suggests that he would be more successful if given another test opportunity. Whether he will be more successful in averaging 30 or more successful in averaging 22 is up for debate, but to suggest that he doesn't appear a better bowler now than in 2003 is ludicrous.

Regardless, your opinions on those players you categorise as "poor" are completely worthless after you make the catagorisation. If Lee returned against New Zealand and took 20 @ 17 and then got 35 @ 20 in the Ashes you would still claim he was bowling poorly because to do otherwise you would have to admit you were wrong, so what use is it discussing him with you?

 

[Richard]

Do you really think Lee is bowling differently in ODIs to how he was last VB Series?
Because I categorically don't.
And I'll say quite safely and surely that Lee won't be successful against England.

 

[Eclipse]

Do you really think Lee is bowling differently in ODIs to how he was last VB Series?
Because I categorically don't.
And I'll say quite safely and surely that Lee won't be successful against England.

He is bowling differently, and you know i'm not a fan of his so you can trust i'm not being biased..i might see something your missing, these things happen.

But he's not IMO bowling different enough that he would be an effective test bowler.

basicly all he is doing different is being a bit smarter, if the ball has stoped swinging for example he doesn't pitch it up so far...